G.R. No. L-278; July 18, 1946
HAYDEE HERRAS TEEHANKEE, petitioner, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, and LEOPOLDO ROVIRA, POMPEYO DIAZ, ANTONIO QUIRINO and JOSE P. VELUZ, Judges of People’s Court, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Haydee Herras Teehankee was detained by the Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States Army under a charge of “active collaboration with the Japanese” and “previous association with the enemy.” She was later transferred to the custody of the Commonwealth Government under the same charge. No information had been filed against her under the People’s Court Act when she petitioned the People’s Court for provisional release on bail on October 2, 1945. The Office of Special Prosecutors recommended her release under a P50,000 bond. However, the People’s Court (through Judges Pompeyo Diaz and Leopoldo Rovira) denied her petition. Teehankee then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-101), which on December 20, 1945, set aside the People’s Court’s orders for grave abuse of discretion and ordered a proper hearing on the bail application. At the hearing on December 27, 1945, the Special Prosecutor did not oppose the bail petition, but Judge Antonio Quirino questioned him about the prosecution’s evidence. The People’s Court reserved its decision. Teehankee filed a motion in the Supreme Court on January 2, 1946. On January 11, 1946, the Supreme Court resolved that motion, instructing the People’s Court to decide the bail petition, noting that when the Special Prosecutor does not oppose bail, the court should generally grant it, but may inquire into the evidence’s strength. However, if the Solicitor General certifies that disclosure would imperil the prosecution or public interest, the court cannot compel an answer. The People’s Court received this resolution on January 11, 1946, but instead of deciding, Judge Quirino held another hearing on January 15, 1946, again questioned the Special Prosecutor, and, upon the prosecutor’s refusal to answer based on the Solicitor General’s certificate, ordered the prosecutor’s arrest for contempt. The bail application remained undecided. Teehankee then filed the present petition for habeas corpus.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court, in a minute resolution dated February 16, 1946 (which this decision explains), ordered petitioner’s release upon filing a P50,000 bond. The Court held that the People’s Court patently abused its discretion. The Solicitor General, as head of the Office of Special Prosecutors, had recommended bail and certified that disclosing evidence would jeopardize the prosecution. Under the Court’s January 11, 1946 resolution, once such a certificate is presented, the People’s Court’s authority to inquire into the evidence ceases. The People’s Court’s failure to decide the bail application and its insistence on questioning the prosecutor despite the certificate constituted an abuse of discretion. Since no information had been filed for an unreasonable time, and the prosecution’s evidence could not be examined without jeopardizing its case, the petitioner’s continued detention without bail was unjustified. The writ of habeas corpus was granted, and she was ordered released on bail.